Mainstream
journalists are being torn apart. Conservatives long have accused
reporters and editors for big newspapers, magazines and television of
having liberal biases. More recently, liberals have hounded
journalists for pandering to conservatives and Americas social
elite. Both conservatives and liberals depict journalists as craven
careerists, more concerned with maintaining their own privilege than
getting stories right or serving the national interest.

Ive
been a journalist for more than 25 years and have worked for two of
the most powerful media organizations in the country, Dow Jones and
Time Inc. Ive written for some of the smallest publications in
the country, from weekly newspapers to small opinion peddlers.
Ive taught journalism at leading universities for seven years.
Everywhere, Ive met talented and principled people who want the
best for their readers. Yet I must concede that critics of
conventional journalism are correct on nearly all counts.

Trying
to be fair and balanced, journalists have failed their subjects and
themselves. In seeking to stand above the fray, journalists have
denied the obvious. They have robbed themselves of credibility. They
are getting torn to pieces fighting the wrong battles.

Technology
bears some of the blame. In the good old days, a pack of journalists
could enter into a secret pact. All reported the same essential
facts, drawing on the same people, and coming to the same
conclusions. The uniformity reports benefited journalists by taking
the risk out of their jobs. No one looked bad.

The
Internet demolished the journalism herd, driving holes into the
fraternitys defenses and exposing most journalists to be poorly
prepared, fearful of making grievous errors and reading from a brief
and superficial script. Blogs and other forms of citizen
journalism can never replace the breadth and quality of professional
journalism but the immediate effect of this torrent reportage has
been to destroy the credibility of mainstream journalism.

The
Myth of Balance. Professional journalists can only restore their
status by taking radical action. They are getting torn to pieces
fighting the wrong battles. Journalists keep telling critics that
they are committed to hearing all sides. That they are committed to
objectivity, which in practical terms means giving ink
and airtime to various viewpoints in a fair and even detached way.
This so-called balance is supposed to translate into the
all-important objectivity.

Veteran
journalists know that the objectivity ethos is the big
lie of their profession. Actually, journalists are beholden to
various points of view, and their commitment to balance is a
convenient way of not talking about the rats nest of
commitments, concerns, biases and passions that animate the life of
every good journalist and most of the bad ones.

Commercial
pressures also force journalists to choose sides, to root for one
outcome over another, to seek out some sources and never even speak
to others. Professional values, meanwhile, force journalists to
routinely rule out certain points of view, notably those deemed
irresponsible or out of the mainstream. In a
world of complexity, journalists cannot square the circle; they
cannot smooth the rough edges of reality.

Partisan
journalism is thus not an aberration but an ideal. Today, this
ideal is never professed and rather, confusingly, denied. Openly
taking sides is a necessary but not sufficient condition to reform journalism.

The
field is under not only ideological attack but also economic attack.
The Internet has forced a transformation in the mentality and tactics
of advertisers, and both newspapers and magazines are only now
starting to feel the negative effects of this transformation. Larger
traumas are still to come as the Internet grows more firmly
entrenched as an information and advertising medium.

A
revolution in journalism is underway and its outcome is not even in
view. For a long time the causalities will mount. The journalists
big dogs will suffer even as they maintain the enormous influence.

Change
is needed, now. It is already clear that a new journalism ethos
is required, a new way of thinking and acting that acknowledges the
criticisms from the Left and the Right while at the same time
presenting a powerful new rationale for journalistic professionalism
and independence.

Here,
in brief, is a new creed for journalism that carries forward whats
consistent with the uncertain waves of the Internet while affirming
what journalism has always stood for.

Let
subjects have their say but tell readers why one side is fudging,
lying or worse. Subjects have grown too adept at manipulating
reporters. Punish liars.

Take
personal responsibility for the accuracy of your story. Outcomes are
more important than process. If your sources prove incorrect, say so
in a new story. The critical measure of a journalists stature
is whether they got the story right, not whether they were fair and
balanced. Admit mistakes. Hold accuracy, not intent, as the highest
standard. Get the right answer. If you cant, keep
trying until you can.

Declare
your agenda. All journalists have one. Be honest about yours.
Readers appreciate candor and will judge a story more sympathetically
when they plainly see where the journalist is coming from.

Fair
and Accurate. Stop talking about journalists
objectivity and instead promote the concept of
journalistic integrity. This means we must substitute the
concept of fair and balanced with the concept of fair and accurate.
Having an agenda raises the importance of ethics and honesty. Because
a journalist is trying to prove a point, his choices of sources
becomes a legitimate area of reader scrutiny. Anonymous sources can
still be used but journalists must take responsibility for whom they
quote, whether they quote them by name or not. The days of hiding
behind a source are over (Thank you, Judith Miller). Passion is
important. Partisanship is inevitable. Journalists should not be
embarrassed to admit to either.

Journalists
are human beings first, not special creatures that are above the
normal loyalties of life. Journalists should be subject to all the
normal constraints of ordinary citizens. They should benefit from all
the normal freedoms of ordinary citizens. If these freedoms are not
enough to support an informed and energetic journalism, then the
normal standards for all citizens must be raised. For too long
journalists have asked for and received special treatment 
notably from government and from their sources. Professional
journalism cannot rest on special privileges but rather superior
performance. --Z

Trying
to be fair and balanced, journalists have failed their subjects and themselves.

Veteran
journalists know that the objectivity ethos is the big
lie of their profession.

This
means we must substitute
the concept of fair and balanced with the concept of fair and accurate.

G.
Pascal Zachary spent 12 years on The Wall Street Journal, teaches
journalism at Stanford University and is an editor-at-large for Time
Inc.s monthly Business 2.0 magazine in San Francisco.